View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Quantification of intracranial internal carotid artery calcification on brain unenhanced CT: evaluation of its feasibility and assessment of the reliability of visual grading scales.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Quantification of intracranial internal carotid artery calcification on brain unenhanced CT: evaluation of its feasibility and assessment of the reliability of visual grading scales.
Authors: Ahn SS (AUTHOR), Nam HS (AUTHOR), Heo JH (AUTHOR), Kim YD (AUTHOR), Lee SK (AUTHOR), Han K (AUTHOR), Kim EY (AUTHOR), Ahn, Sung Soo1 (AUTHOR), Nam, Hyo Suk (AUTHOR), Heo, Ji Hoe (AUTHOR), Kim, Young Dae (AUTHOR), Lee, Seung-Koo (AUTHOR), Han, Kyunghwa (AUTHOR), Kim, Eung Yeop (AUTHOR)
Source: European Radiology. Jan2013, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p20-27. 8p.
Abstract: Objectives: Previous studies have evaluated intracranial internal carotid artery calcifications (ICACs) qualitatively using different visual grading scales, which could lead to inconsistent results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of ICAC volume measurement and to correlate the volume with visual grading scales.Methods: We included 49 patients (>50 years) who underwent unenhanced cranial CT. Two observers evaluated four visual grading scales and measured ICAC volumes semi-automatically, and interobserver agreements were assessed. Differences in ICAC volume between visual grades of each scale were tested. The relationship between the visual grading and volume was assessed.Results: Interobserver agreements ranged from 0.841 to 0.901 for visual grading and 0.997 for volume measurement. Mean volumes were not significantly different between the visual grades (P > 0.05) except when comparing grade 4 with the other grades. The grades of each visual grading correlated well with ICAC volumes (Spearman's ρ = 0.849-0.881, P < 0.001). The relationship between the visual grades and volume was described by a quadratic model (R (2), 0.31-0.50, P < 0.01).Conclusions: ICAC volume measurement is feasible and reproducible, whereas visual grades poorly reflect the actual volume; therefore, volume measurement may be warranted for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Description
Abstract:<bold>Objectives: </bold>Previous studies have evaluated intracranial internal carotid artery calcifications (ICACs) qualitatively using different visual grading scales, which could lead to inconsistent results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of ICAC volume measurement and to correlate the volume with visual grading scales.<bold>Methods: </bold>We included 49 patients (>50 years) who underwent unenhanced cranial CT. Two observers evaluated four visual grading scales and measured ICAC volumes semi-automatically, and interobserver agreements were assessed. Differences in ICAC volume between visual grades of each scale were tested. The relationship between the visual grading and volume was assessed.<bold>Results: </bold>Interobserver agreements ranged from 0.841 to 0.901 for visual grading and 0.997 for volume measurement. Mean volumes were not significantly different between the visual grades (P > 0.05) except when comparing grade 4 with the other grades. The grades of each visual grading correlated well with ICAC volumes (Spearman's ρ = 0.849-0.881, P < 0.001). The relationship between the visual grades and volume was described by a quadratic model (R (2), 0.31-0.50, P < 0.01).<bold>Conclusions: </bold>ICAC volume measurement is feasible and reproducible, whereas visual grades poorly reflect the actual volume; therefore, volume measurement may be warranted for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:09387994
DOI:10.1007/s00330-012-2586-z